It was the same price as every other game, it was only really buggy on old consoles (which it should never have been released on), and they got patches out very quickly to sort out the bugs and issues on PC. And there were plenty of new concepts in the netrunning and biohacking areas of the game. Plus it has a massive story and tons of content.
Why is the time spent playing a game always used as a marker of how good it is? I can spend 100 hours doing something I hate and feel worse for having done it. I know that is my fault, but still, I can play a good game for five hours and feel like it was worth ten times the price, versus a bad game I may have spent 20 hours playing and regret, waiting for it to get better. Does everyone measure the quality of something based on how much time it took out of their life?
That’s you though, that doesn’t translate for everyone so I think it’s a weird way to argue about how good something is. If someone argues that a game is good because people spend so many hours on it, it tells me nothing at all about the quality of the game other than you don’t get so irritated you quit immediately. If you spent 100 hours on a game and 60 on another, is the 100 hour game automatically better?
Games have gotten vastly bigger and more complex, bugs are going to happen with that being the case. And quality has not gone down, old games had tons of bugs, and without patching available you were just stuck with them.
Go replay the Lion King on SNES, and tell me it’s as good as modern AAA games. Nostalgia goggles have blinded you.
Honestly, games need to sell DLC to make money. At least they allow mods for additional content.
IMHO compared to other RPG developers, CDPR is pretty good at what they do, and listening to their player base. I’m not suggesting they be celebrated for being “not total garbage”, but most AAA studios are exactly that. If I want a good RPG game and I’m supposed to vote with my wallet, I’m picking Cyberpunk over Starfield.
Yeah, it’s really ashame that most AAA companies opt in the quick and easy ways these days. Especially with CDPR, since most of us saw them grow with the witcher series. But I will die on the hill in agreeing with you that Cyberpunk did better in most aspects than Starfield upon release, other than the amount of bugs. In my opinion, Starfield has taken Bethesda’s outdated “RPG” formula and became something even more bland and hollow than their last game. It’s really sad and disappointing to see honestly
Fuck CDPR.
What the hell is a AAA game to you? Cyberpunk is absolutely AAA.
By which you mean overpriced and underdeveloped, with barely any new concepts to show for it?
It was the same price as every other game, it was only really buggy on old consoles (which it should never have been released on), and they got patches out very quickly to sort out the bugs and issues on PC. And there were plenty of new concepts in the netrunning and biohacking areas of the game. Plus it has a massive story and tons of content.
You should try actually playing it.
Yeah, overpriced.
I’ve got over a hundred hours played on it, at $80 CAD that’s less than $1 per hour of entertainment. Not at all bad really.
You know Donkey Kong Country 2 was $80 US when it came out, and it could be beaten completely in under 10 hours. Games are cheap nowadays.
Why is the time spent playing a game always used as a marker of how good it is? I can spend 100 hours doing something I hate and feel worse for having done it. I know that is my fault, but still, I can play a good game for five hours and feel like it was worth ten times the price, versus a bad game I may have spent 20 hours playing and regret, waiting for it to get better. Does everyone measure the quality of something based on how much time it took out of their life?
Because I wouldn’t have spent 100 hours playing it if I didn’t enjoy it.
That’s you though, that doesn’t translate for everyone so I think it’s a weird way to argue about how good something is. If someone argues that a game is good because people spend so many hours on it, it tells me nothing at all about the quality of the game other than you don’t get so irritated you quit immediately. If you spent 100 hours on a game and 60 on another, is the 100 hour game automatically better?
Yet the companies still make record profits meanwhile quality has gone down 🤔
Games have gotten vastly bigger and more complex, bugs are going to happen with that being the case. And quality has not gone down, old games had tons of bugs, and without patching available you were just stuck with them.
Go replay the Lion King on SNES, and tell me it’s as good as modern AAA games. Nostalgia goggles have blinded you.
Honestly, games need to sell DLC to make money. At least they allow mods for additional content.
IMHO compared to other RPG developers, CDPR is pretty good at what they do, and listening to their player base. I’m not suggesting they be celebrated for being “not total garbage”, but most AAA studios are exactly that. If I want a good RPG game and I’m supposed to vote with my wallet, I’m picking Cyberpunk over Starfield.
Yeah, it’s really ashame that most AAA companies opt in the quick and easy ways these days. Especially with CDPR, since most of us saw them grow with the witcher series. But I will die on the hill in agreeing with you that Cyberpunk did better in most aspects than Starfield upon release, other than the amount of bugs. In my opinion, Starfield has taken Bethesda’s outdated “RPG” formula and became something even more bland and hollow than their last game. It’s really sad and disappointing to see honestly